Citation Nr: 9822946
Decision Date: 07/29/98 Archive Date: 08/04/98
DOCKET NO. 97-14 137 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Jackson,
Mississippi
THE ISSUES
1. Entitlement to service connection for post operative
excision residuals of vocal cord polyp secondary to
septectomy for deviated nasal septum.
2. Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss
secondary to septectomy for deviated nasal septum.
3. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus secondary
to septectomy for deviated nasal septum.
4. Entitlement to an increased rating for anxiety reaction
with headaches, currently evaluated as 50 percent disabling.
5. Entitlement to an increased rating for duodenal ulcer,
currently evaluated as 20 percent disabling.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: State Veterans Affairs
Commission
WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL
Appellant and his Wife
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
C. Hancock, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran served on active duty from May 1965 to February
1969.
The claims currently on appeal come before the Board of
Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of an April 1996 rating
decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional
Office (RO) located in Jackson, Mississippi.
The veteran was afforded a personal hearing at the RO in
September 1997.
REMAND
The veteran was notified by the Board, by means of a letter
dated on April 15, 1998, that according to his VA Form 9,
Appeal to Board of Veterans’ Appeals, which was dated on
April 15, 1997, he requested to be afforded a “Travel
Board” hearing. As such, the veteran was further informed
that he had the right to have a hearing before a member of
the Board. In a letter from the veteran to the Board, and
dated in May 1998, the veteran indicated that he did indeed
wish to be scheduled for a “teleconference” hearing at the
RO with a member of the Board. The Board interprets the
veteran’s use of the word teleconference as meaning a
videoconference hearing.
Accordingly, and in order to ensure the veteran’s right of
due process, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following
development:
The RO should contact the veteran in
order to schedule him for a
videoconference hearing to be held at the
RO before a member of the Board. See
38 C.F.R. § 20.704 (1997).
Thereafter, the case should case should then be returned to
the Board for appellate consideration, if otherwise in order.
The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate outcome of
the case. The veteran need take no action until notified.
This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO.
The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the
Board or by the United States Court of Veterans’ Appeals for
additional development or other appropriate action must be
handled in an expeditious manner. See The Veterans’ Benefits
Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 302, 108
Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994) and 38 U.S.C.A. § 5101 (West 1991 and
Supp. 1996)(Historical and Statutory Notes). In addition,
VBA’s ADJUDICATION PROCEDURE MANUAL, M21-1, Part IV, directs
the ROs to provide expeditious handling of all cases that
have been remanded by the Board and by the Court. See M21-1,
Part IV, paras. 8.44-8.45 and 38.02-38.03.
ROBERT P. REGAN
Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Veterans Appeals. This remand is in the nature of a
preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the
Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b)
(1997).
- 2 -